Journal of Mathematics Education © Education for All

June 2014, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 33-47

Investigation and Analysis of Teacher’s

Textbook-using Status Quo in the
Northeast of China
Jiali Yan
Fanzhe Kong

Northeast Normal University, China

This study used the relevant work of “Investigation of New Century Primary
Mathematics Textbook’s 10-year Implementation (2001-2011)” to survey
teacher’s textbook-using status quo in the Northeast of China. It found that
82.4% of teachers could adapt the new century textbook, 94.3% of teachers
could realize the significance of curriculum standards, roughly 80% of
teachers had judgment awareness of textbook, and over 95% of teachers
could accept new mathematical teaching views. This text also analyzed
existing problems: most teachers couldn’t build direct relationships between
curriculum standards and instruction, and their judgments on textbook were
always based on experience and intuition.

Key words: Teacher, textbook-using, investigation, analysis.

In the early days of New China, primary and secondary school

textbooks’ compilation and publication had been under relatively centralized
management system, which referred to “one unified syllabus, one unified
textbook version” policy. The country had set up a professional textbook press,
People's Education Press, and drawn a large number of experts from all over
the country to compile a set of unified textbooks in order to meet the basic
needs of education development for New China. After Reform and
Opening-up, people began to explore implementation of the “one unified
syllabus, multiple textbook versions” policy.
With the implementation of New Round Basic Education Curriculum
Reform which officially started in 2001, textbook policy gradually realized
transition from “one unified syllabus, one unified textbook version”, to “one
unified syllabus, multiple textbook versions,” and to “one set of unified
standards, multiple textbook versions”. The National Appraisal Committee of
School Textbooks had examined and passed about 167 textbooks versions
involving 22 subjects which schools were allowed to select and use. Then,
“one unified standards, multiple textbook versions” policy put forward the
new requirements for teacher’s use of textbook: “standards” requires teachers
34 Teacher’s Textbook-Using

to understand its status and role; “multiple” requires teachers to have textbook
evaluation consciousness.
In July of 2001, the Ministry of Education promulgated the Compendium
of Curriculum Reform of Basic Education (Trial), and put forward new
requirements for course contents, “Change course contents’ difficulty,
numerous, partial, old and highly-academic current situations, strengthen
course contents’ contacts with student lives, modern society and development
of science and technology, pay attention to students’ learning interests and
experience, select the necessary knowledge and skills for lifelong learning”
(Li, 2001).
Traditional textbooks compiled by People’s Education Press (PEP) can
represent classic teaching materials which focus on how to teach, while
standards-based textbooks stress how to learn. At present, there are seven
more popular primary mathematics textbook versions, which are published by
People’s Education Press, Beijing Normal University Press, Jiangsu
Education Press, Zhejiang Education Press, Southern China Normal
University Press, Hebei Education Press and Qingdao Press.
Among these versions, New Century mathematics textbooks published
by Beijing Normal University Press are the most representative. Their design
philosophies are as follows: pay attention to students’ life experience, closely
connect mathematics with reality; show the production and application
process of knowledge, form the basic narrative mode of “problem situation -
model - interpretation and application”; promote students’ participation,
inquiry and communication using mathematical activities as links; pay
attention to students’ emotional experiences and create a comfortable and
harmonious learning atmosphere; from the shallow to the deep, step by step,
upward with spiral; highlight mutual and comprehensive contacts between
knowledge; pay attention to students’ different math learning needs; and
embody cultural values of mathematics combining with proper materials.
From the year 2001 to 2011, Chinese New Round Basic Education
Curriculum Reform (hereinafter referred to as “New Curriculum Reform”)
was implemented for 10 years. Our concern is whether teachers who have
adapted traditional PEP textbooks and grown up under the influence of “one
unified syllabus, one unified textbook version” policy can well adapt the new
textbook policy and standards-based textbooks. Seizing the opportunity of
“Investigation of New Century Primary Mathematics Textbook’s 10-year
Implementation (2001-2011),” we surveyed and analyzed teacher’s
textbook-using status quo in the Northeast of China.
“Teacher’s textbook-using instruction” refers to how teacher use the
textbook in the process of curriculum implementation, with the aim of
fulfilling tasks and achieving goals. It includes analyzing textbooks,
integrating curriculum resources inside and outside of the text, conducting
lessons with textbooks, making judgments on textbooks, and other related
Yan & Kong 35

specific work. (Kong & Shi, 2009)

Investigation

We set up the Northeast investigation team, confirmed our schedule, then

began our two-month work in October, 2011. Experienced professor was in
charge of the team.

Survey Scope

We selected Changchun City, Liaoyuan City, and Dalian City for our
field survey. Among them, Nanguan District and Nongan Country of
Changchun, Longshan District of Liaoyuan, and Gan Jingzi District of Dalian
were the first areas to implement the New Century textbook; all of them have
implemented the New Century textbook for 10 years. In addition, these areas
involved urban and suburban districts, and developed and undeveloped
districts, so in some sense, they could be an appropriate representative of the
Northeast of China.

Tools

We collected data in two ways: a questionnaire for teachers and a

focused interview with teachers and administrators. We mainly used the
questionnaire provided by the New Century Primary Mathematics Textbook
Editorial Group. The main part of the questionnaire is the original
questionnaire about investigation of new curriculum implementation status
designed by the Ministry of Education. The questionnaire mainly focused on
four aspects of design: Understanding of standards’ contents and objectives,
planning lessons with the textbook, conducting lessons with textbooks, and
making judgments based on textbooks.
In addition, we designed the outline of the focused interview. For
teachers, we were mainly concerned about the teacher’s feeling regarding
using the New Century textbook, their cognition of relationships to the
standards, textbook, teacher and students; For administrators, we would like to
know what measures schools have taken to help teachers use the New Century
textbook.

Samples and Methods

School sampling: in Changchun City, we conducted a general

investigation in Nanguan District and Nongan Country. That is, every school
in these two districts was selected as a sample, and there were 71 sample
schools in total. In Longshan District of Liaoyuan City and Gan Jingzi District
36 Teacher’s Textbook-Using

of Dalian City, we conducted stratified sampling and extracted 12 sample

schools in total from each district 6 schools were extracted.
Teacher sampling: all the teachers who taught math with the New
Century textbook in the sample schools were invited to fill out questionnaire
surveys; 1372 copies were issued in total; and then we randomly selected 101
teachers to do focused-interview surveys.
Administrator sampling: directors in charge of mathematics instruction
in sample schools were randomly selected, and they were invited to fill out
focused-interview surveys; 42 directors were interviewed in total.

Findings

Teacher’s Standards Views

Before New Curriculum Reform, teacher’s instruction was directed by

a syllabus, a kind of guidance document in the form of an outline which
scheduled relevant discipline contents according to a teaching plan. It
stipulated basic requirements of the scope of teaching material and its system,
teaching progress and teaching method. Generally speaking, the starting
points of the syllabus were teachers and their teaching, rather than students
and their learning.
When the New Curriculum Reform started in 2001, mathematics
curriculum standards (hereinafter referred to as “standards”) replaced the
mathematics syllabus (hereinafter referred to as “syllabus”). The
Compendium of Curriculum Reform of Basic Education (Trial) prescribed,
“National curriculum standards are the basis of compiling textbooks, teaching,
assessment and examination design, are the foundations of national
management and course evaluation. It should reflect basic national
requirements of knowledge and skills, process and methods, attitudes and
values for students at different stages, prescribe the nature of every course, its
objectives, content framework, and put forward suggestions for teaching and
evaluation” (Li, 2001). In general, the starting points of standards are students
and their learning.

100.0% 94.3% 87.2%

50.0% 44.9%
0.0%
Understanding of Teacher has rights to Teacher is an
standards is alter standards' implementer of
important for requirements textbooks and

Agree and strongly agree

Figure 1. Results about teacher’s views of standards.

The results of the questionnaire survey indicated that 94.3% of

Yan & Kong 37

teachers had realized the great significance of standards, and 87.2% of

teachers had acknowledged their implementer identity. But when came to the
question whether teachers could alter standards’ requirements, there were two
obviously opposite opinions; 44.9% of teachers thought they could, but the
rest, 55.1%, didn’t agree. According to this, we could infer that nearly half of
teachers were still not sure about standards’ status and function (see Figure 1).
Information we collected from focused interviews with teachers also
would confirm this inference. For example, one teacher said, “Yes, we always
read the mathematics standards. Our school also has organized
standards-studying activities several times; even so, I still can’t understand
some ideas in it well; it is somewhat difficult for primary teachers to
understand.” Another teacher said, “We are asked to read standards before the
beginning of every semester’s beginning. I think standards are just about some
requirements students need to meet and not very helpful for teachers’
instruction.”

Time spent, Forms, and Focus

60.0% 51.5%
31.9%
40.0%
13.3%
20.0% 3.3%
0.0%
More than before The sam e as Less than before Not very clear
before

Time spent on lesson planning

Figure 2. Results about teacher’s time spent on lesson planning.

In the results of questionnaire survey, 51.5% of teachers felt that they

needed to spend more time on lesson planning than before. Representative
opinions are, “We need to do lesson preparation carefully in order to dig out
its key and difficult points, because the textbook didn’t tell us clearly”; “There
are a lot of knowledge extensions in the textbook, besides rich teaching
experiences. You need to spend more time studying the textbook to know
what they are” (see Figure 2).
In addition, information we collected from focused interviews
reflected that teacher’s lesson planning forms tended to be diversified, just
like personal preparation, collective preparation, online preparation, and same
lesson with different structures. One teacher said, “Every week, we have
regular time for collective lesson preparation to let every teacher clearly know
what the difficult point of knowledge is”; another teacher said, “We often
discuss together, formally and informally.”
At the same time, more and more teachers began to focus on students’
interests and abilities when they did lesson preparation; they said, “We make
some adjustments according to students’ specific learning status, then students
38 Teacher’s Textbook-Using

can feel more interested in learning” and “Lesson planning should focus on
tri-dimension objectives, especially the development of students’ abilities.”

Ways of Task Design

Before New Curriculum Reform, most of the teachers strictly designed

the task in accordance with the textbook for fear that there existed
discrepancies.

After New Curriculum Reform, some changes had taken place.

70.0% 62.70%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% 27.50%
30.0%
20.0% 5.5% 4.20%
10.0%
0.0%
Totally comply with Basically accord Make some Design totally by
the textbook with the textbook adjustments as one's own way
needed

Teacher's task design way

Figure 3. Results about teacher’s task design way.

The proportions of two extreme cases “totally comply with the

textbook” and “design totally by one’s own way” were the least. The majority
of teachers were able to make some adjustments according to the actual
situation, equipped with the consciousness of “teaching with the textbook”,
instead of “teaching the textbook”. Just like one teacher said, “Don’t be
limited by the mathematics textbook; we should teach students in accordance
with their aptitudes” (see Figure 3)

Mathematics Teaching Views

Before the New Curriculum Reform, “Middle School Mathematics

Teaching Outline (Draft).” promulgated in 1952, first put forward the concept
of “double bases” (Curriculum and Textbook Research Institute, 2001), it had
not played an important role to Chinese basic mathematics education reform.
But since the 1990s, its value was gradually alienated and became the
characteristic symbol of “examination education.” That is, emphasizing
systematic, logic and formalized knowledge, grasping proficient skills through
memory and practice, implementing the exercises tactics oriented by
deductive thinking.
The New Curriculum Reform, “Full-time Compulsory Education
Mathematics Curriculum Standards (Experimental Draft)” indicated that
mathematical knowledge included mathematical facts and mathematical
Yan & Kong 39

activity experience. That is, the extension of “mathematical knowledge” was

expanded, including not only objective knowledge which referred to
mathematical facts, but also subjective knowledge which referred to
mathematical activity experience (Sun, 2011). “Compulsory Education
Mathematics Curriculum Standards (2011)” clearly put forward the concept of
“four bases”: basic knowledge, basic skills, basic thought and basic activity
experience.
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Strongly Disagree Unclear Agree Strongly
disagree agree

Mathematics teaching should be closed to students' lives.

Mathematics teaching should create more thinking chances for students.
Mathematics teaching should create more communicating chances for students.
Mathematics teaching should let students explore in practice.

Figure 4. Results about teacher’s mathematics teaching views.

Results from questionnaire survey showed us, 97.2% of teachers

agreed “mathematics teaching should be close to students’ lives”, 96.1% of
teachers agreed “mathematics teaching should create more thinking
opprtunities for students”, 95.9% of teachers agreed “Mathematics teaching
should create more communicating opportunities for students”, 95.8% of
teachers agreed “mathematics teaching should let students explore in practice”.
So we could infer that the majority of teachers had changed their mathematics
teaching views, in accordance with the teaching philosophy that New
Curriculum Reform advocated (see Figure 4).

Teaching Methods and Contents

Before the New Curriculum Reform, teachers were deeply influenced

by “one unified syllabus, one unified textbook” policy, and regarded the
textbook as the “teaching bible”. They blindly followed the textbook, rarely
doubted the textbook, rarely considered why they taught, and this kind of
thought was deep-seated.
After New Curriculum Reform, something has changed.
40 Teacher’s Textbook-Using

100.0% 90.6%
90.0% 88.2%
80.0%
70.0% 68.2%
60.0% 72.3%
50.0% 53.9%
51.1%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

Examples

changed.
contents in
methods in

textbook
should be
Teaching

Teaching

textbook

can be
textbook

in the
can be
the

the
Agree and strongly agree

Figure 5. Results about teacher’s views of teaching methods and contents.

Regarding teaching methods, although 53.9% of teachers agreed that

teaching methods in the textbook should be complied with teaching approach,
90.8% of teachers agreed that they could use their own teaching methods. So
we would conclude that teachers might realize their subjective initiatives
while still respecting the textbook (see Figure 5).
Regarding teaching contents, 88.2% of teachers agreed that teaching
contents in the textbook could be increased while 51.1% of teachers agreed
that teaching contents in the textbook could be decreased. We worried that
this tendency might cause additional academic burden for students. Just as
Zhong described, “The school teachers or parents often worry that knowledge
from one version of the textbook may not be able to cope with the university
entrance exam, so the more the better, and ultimately dwarf school courses
into ‘heavy scores, light education’ simple mechanical training tools” (Zhong,
2009). In addition, 68.2% of teachers agreed that examples in the textbook
could be changed, and 72.3% of teachers agreed that exercises in the textbook
could be changed, which reflected that the view of the “sacred” textbook to
some extent had improved.

Teacher’s Adaption of the New Century Textbook

Before New Curriculum Reform, the PEP mathematics textbook was

systematically arranged in line of mathematical knowledge. Most of teachers
liked this style, just as one teacher described, “Any of us who had the PEP
textbook would know how to teach”.
After the New Curriculum Reform, the New Century mathematics
textbook was exactly arranged to align with students’ cognitive level, using
knowledge acquisition process instead of conclusion presenting, and whether
teachers could adapt it well or not.
Yan & Kong 41

80.0% 71.3%
60.0%
40.0% 13.0%
11.1% 4.6%
20.0%
0.0%
Com pletely Basically Inadaptable Com pletely
adaptable adaptable inadaptable

Teacher's adaption of the textbook

Figure 6. Results about teacher’s adaption of the textbook.

We found that 82.4% of teachers were able to adapt the New Century
textbook, just a small group of teachers showed inadaptation; they thought,
“Presentation of some important definitions, properties, methods and formulas
in the textbook are not clear, which can’t play a role in teacher’s lesson
preparation, teaching and student’s self-study” (see Figure 6).

50.0% 44.2%
40.0%
30.0% 22.3% 22.0%
20.0% 10.7%
10.0% 0.8%
0.0%
Perfect Need fine General Need great Be overthrew
adjustment adjustment

Teacher’s judgment on design philosophy of the textbook

Figure 7. Results about teacher’s judgment on textbook’s design philosophy

There were 22.3% of teachers considering that the New Century

mathematics textbook’s design philosophy was quite good with no need for
adjustment. The rest, 77.7% of teachers, thought that the textbook’s design
philosophy needed some different degrees of adjustments which manifested
that most teachers no longer blindly followed the textbook and began to have
their own reflections. One teacher in the interview said, “The design
philosophy of the textbook is good, but knowledge is not arranged
systematically enough, so it is hard to put this philosophy into practice” (see
Figure 7).
42 Teacher’s Textbook-Using

45.0% 40.6%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0% 26.6% 26.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0% 6.3%
5.0% 0.5%
0.0%
Perfect Needs fine General Needs great Be
adjustm ents adjustm ents overthrew

Teacher's judgment on the textbook's source materials

Figure 8. Results about teacher’s judgment on textbook’s source materials.

See Figure 8, there were 26.6% of teachers considering that the New
Century mathematics textbook’s source materials were quite good and no
need for adjustment. The rest, 73.4% of teachers, thought that the textbook’s
source materials needed different degrees of adjustments. They thought,
“Some of them are far away from students’ lives and hard for students to
understand” (see Figure 8).
50.0% 45.8%

40.0%
26.7%
30.0%

20.0% 14.1%
12.0%
10.0% 1.4%

0.0%
Entirely Appropriate Generally Inappropriate Don't know
appropriate

Teacher's judgments on the layout of the textbook

Figure 9. Results about teacher’s judgment on textbook’s layout.

There were 14.1% of teachers considering that the New Century

mathematics textbook’s layout was entirely appropriate and there was no need
for adjustment, 1.4% of teachers didn’t know how to judge, and the rest,
84.5% of teachers, thought that the textbook’s layout needed some
improvements. They said, “Spiral arrangement of knowledge make students
easily forget what they have learned in the first school year, and we have to
relearn the knowledge when they step into the new school year” (see Figure
9).
Yan & Kong 43

50.0% 45.3%
40.0% 31.7%
30.0%
20.0% 14.8%
7.3%
10.0% 0.9%
0.0%
Entirely Appropriate General Inappropriate Don't know
appropriate

Teacher's judgement on the textbook's format

Figure 10. Results about teacher’s judgment on textbook’s format.

There were 14.8% of teachers considering that the New Century

mathematics textbook’s format was entirely appropriate and there was no
need for adjustment, 0.9% of teachers didn’t know how to judge, and the rest,
84.3% of teachers, thought that the textbook’s format needed some
improvement. They said, “The lifestyle title (eg. tree planting) replaces the
mathematics subject (two digits by one digit division), and it is not good for
students to grasp knowledge form the whole” (see Figure 10).

Discussion

From the above, 82.4% of teachers would adapt the new century
textbook, 94.3% of teachers could realize the significance of standards, and
roughly 80% of teachers had judgment awareness of the textbook, and over
95% of teachers could accept new mathematical teaching views. These
changes were delightful, but there are still some problems existing: most
teachers couldn’t build direct relationships between standards and instruction,
and their judgments about textbook were always based on experience and
intuition. So we will conduct a discussion here to find causes and solutions to
these problems.

Direct Roles of Standards

Direct roles mean that standards have direct reference values for
teacher’s instruction. But the investigation results relating to this aspect did
not appear positive. 87.7% of teachers approved that the teacher’s book was of
great help for their lesson preparation rather than were the standards; most of
them thought, “When it comes to the specific lesson, standards don’t work,”
so they seldom studied the standards when they prepared the lesson.
This may stem from the differences between the mathematics syllabus
and the standards. The syllabus focused on the provision of teaching work,
specified the basic teaching goals, teaching contents, teaching requirements
44 Teacher’s Textbook-Using

and some teaching suggestions, which made teachers pay more attention to
the knowledge and the results (Li, 2002). Standards are designed to take
content standards as the main body, which reflect the overall expectations for
students and the cumulative outcomes of class hours. If teachers still continue
to use the ideas of syllabus to simply find correspondences between daily
teaching and standards, they will feel disappointed and gained little.
So teachers first need to profoundly understand the standards’ status,
roles and differences with the syllabus in order to grasp the overall
expectations for students, then according to the concrete learning and teaching
situations, specify expectations into grade goals, and specify grade goals into
teaching objectives for every lesson. Some scholars (Porter, 1998; Xia & Cui,
2006) have researched standards’ practical influences from the respect of
effectiveness of education policy. They indicated that there were several ways
to enhance the standards’ practical influences: increasing standards’ provision
of teaching, strengthening the consistency of relevant curriculum, teaching
policy and standards, implementing the standards and standards-based
evaluation simultaneously, and establishing the system and instrument of
regular test for implementation of standards. Generally speaking, the
standards themselves should not be a “loner”.
Build the direct relationship between standards and instruction to make
the standards give a full picture the role of “scale”, so when teachers find it
hard to “change the standards’ language into the clear picture of ideal
classroom practice” (Mundy, 2002), they will turn to the teacher book and the
test to seek the basis of teaching.
In addition, the effectiveness of teacher’s training should be given
more attention. Through the interview with administrators of schools, we
found that in order to implement the New Century Textbook, schools have
conducted a variety of activities, like subject conferences, new textbook
training activities, network teaching research activities, as well as teaching
quality assurance measures, such as collective lesson preparation, pushing
door to attend a lecture, and so on. However, most of these activities and
measures give much more focus to the class, and seldom focus on standards’
research. So when the teacher is asked to “What roles of standards do you
think can play in your teaching”, teachers usually answered, “Its philosophy,
teaching and evaluation suggestions,” and paid little attention to the contents
and goal requirements of standards. So we can infer that teachers’ judgments
of the textbook are mostly based on their experience and intuition.
Therefore, to give full attention to the standards’ direct roles, it should
adopt “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. First, the “standards”
themselves should perfect their system, then schools should specify the
standards’ contents and goal requirements level by level until they can be
operated by teachers, to make teacher’s judgments on the textbook and
instruction more reasonable.
Yan & Kong 45

Indirect Roles of Standards

Indirect roles mean that philosophy and values delivered in the

standards have indirect influences on teacher’s instruction. In the survey, we
found that most of teachers were able to adapt the new mathematics teaching
views, but teachers reflected that these views were hard to put into practice.
The investigation reflected two causes:
In the textbook itself, “Exercises and example can’t combine
organically and this inadvertently increases the knowledge capacity of
classroom teaching”; “The textbook’s spiral arrangement sequences make it
hard for teachers to grasp the basic requirements of every spiral”; “Implicative
design ideas of the textbook make it hard for teachers to understand”; “The
teacher book has less useful contents”; “Fewer course wares cause teachers
take lot of time to prepare the lesson and there is no time to study the
textbook”.
Pressures from examinations, “If considering the test, I will choose the
PEP textbook; if considering the development of students’ abilities, I will use
the New Century textbook”; “For example, the tabulation method in the New
Century textbook can be used to exercise students’ minds, but the tabulation
method will become trouble when students used it in the examination; the
papers don’t look so neat either”; “Although this textbook encourages
students to solve problems in diversified ways, we still will select one
optimum way to let students grasp it, thus, they will save a lot of time in the
examination”.
Just as Zhu Muju, the Basic Education Inspector of the Ministry of
Education, said, “At this development stage, the shortage of high quality
educational resources, the impact of the employment problems and the great
inertia of the traditional culture, all lead to the entrance competitions. In fact,
these are social problems reflected in the education field. But the education
responsibility is, even if there are fierce competitions, educators should let
students grow regularly and with dignity” (Zhu, 2011).
Multiple: Teacher’s Judgment about Textbook Should Be Reasonable
Here we refer to reasonable judgment basis, judgment purpose and
judgment process. During these ten years (2001-2011), teacher’s judgment
awareness has awaken to some extent, but the judgment basis is not unified,
mostly based on their experience and intuition. The judgment purpose mainly
focuses on whether to help students grasp the basic knowledge and skills,
especially for the entrance examination; The judgment process often lacks
sufficient understanding and correct interpretation of the textbook. In addition
to the reasons from the standards and the society, there are two other aspects:
Regarding quality of after-sale service of the textbook, in this survey,
49% of teachers thought “Textbook Press offers good quality of training
service for teachers, and is helpful for improving teacher’s professional level”;
46 Teacher’s Textbook-Using

33.5% of teachers regarded the quality of training as general, 17.5% of

teachers thought the training was not helpful. Just as one principal said in the
interview, “The training was going very well at the beginning, from provincial
level, to municipal level, to district level, to school level. But two years later,
when teachers had confusions regarding the operation, the strength of this
kind of training was not inadequate”. From the point of textbook editors’
views, clearly delivering textbook’s design ideas to schools and teachers,
carrying out relevant training, and providing relevant supporting resources
and services, are the basic guarantees for the textbook to take effect, and are
also prerequisites for teachers to judge the textbook reasonably.
Regarding teachers’ teaching load problem, among 1372 teachers,
full-time mathematics teachers only account for 20.7%, 8.1% of teachers
teach one major subject and one minor subject, 69.4% of teachers teach two
major subjects. Teachers generally indicated that they had no more time and
energy to study the textbook, even if they had realized the significance of
textbook research. Therefore, plenty of time and energy is another requisite or
guarantee for teachers to conduct textbook research.
From the sample survey and analysis of teacher’s textbook-using
status quo in the Northeast of China, we deeply realize the two change
principles mentioned in Hall and Hord’s (2004) works “Change is a process,
not just an event” and “Promotion of change needs team efforts.” Although
teachers’ knowledge and beliefs are targets of change, they also influence
change by serving as a filter through which teachers interpret new information,
including curriculum content and reform recommendations (Borko & Putnam,
1996; Cohen & Ball, 1990). Therefore, each unit (textbook editors, standards
makers, and teacher’s trainers) should make good transitions for teachers’
correct and creative textbook use in the next unit.

References

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R.

Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational psychology (pp.
673-708). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A
commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3),
331-338.
Curriculum and Textbook Research Institute. (2001). 20 世纪中国中小学课
程标准 · 教学大纲汇编 · 数学卷 [Twenty century Chinese primary and
middle school curriculum standards·assembly syllabus·mathematical roll].
China, Beijing: People’s Education Press.
Hall G., & Hord S. M. (2001). Implanting change: Patterns, principles and
potholes (first edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Kong F., & Shi N. (2009). Process analysis and level measurement of
Yan & Kong 47

textbooks use by teachers. Frontier Education in China, 4(2),269.

Li, J. (2001, July 27). 基础教育课程改革纲要（试行）[The compendium of
curriculum reform of basic education (Trial)]. China Education Daily, pp.
A2.
Li Jianping. (2002). 从教学大纲走向课程标准——课程专家与课程实施者
的对话[From the syllabus to curriculum standards ---- dialogue between
curriculum experts and implementers]. Research in Educational
Development, 4, 30-34.
Mundy, J. F. (2002). What does it mean to be standards-based? Issues in
conceptualizing, measuring and studying alignment with standards.
Proceedings of the NCTM Research Catalyst Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/highered/sirg/sirg3.pdf.
Porter, A. C. (1998). The effects of upgrading policies on high school
mathematics and science. In D. Ravitch (Ed.)., Brookings Papers on
Education Policy. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution Press.
Sun, X. (2011). 四基：十年数学课程改革最重要的收获[Four bases: The
most important achievement of ten-year mathematics curriculum reform].
Basic Education Curriculum, 7-8, 34.
Xia X., & Cui Y.. (2006). 基于课程标准的教学：历史考察与现实追问
[Standards-based teaching: Historical and realistic questions]. Global
Education, 3(3), 62-66.
Zhong qiquan. (2009). 一纲多本：教育民主的诉求——我国教科书政策述
评[“One unified standards, multiple versions of textbook”: pursuit of
education democracy----A review of textbook policy in China]. Research
in Educational Development, 4, 4.
Zhu M., & Yu, H. (2011). 十年基础教育课程改革的思考——课改热点问
题 访 谈 录 [Thinking about ten-year basic education curriculum
reform----interview record about hot issues]. People’s Education, 18,
33-38.

Authors:

Jiali Yan
Faculty of Education, Northeast Normal University,
5268 Renmin Street, Changchun, Jilin Province, China
Email: yanjiali86@126.com

Fanzhe Kong
Faculty of Education, Northeast Normal University,
5268 Renmin Street, Changchun, Jilin Province, China
Email: fzkong@163.com